5G

Good defense, schizo. Go back to your manlet cave.

defense of what? was taking a proper screenshot too hard for you?

I posted proof there was no harm in 5G. You went "*you're" and called it a day.

I have no side in this 5G nonsense. just pointing out that the person calling other dumb can't take a screenshot.

Attached: 800px-Emojione_BW_1F644.svg.png (800x800, 27K)

>mongrel can't take a screenshot and uses a picture of an emoji to react sarcastically like he's a 14yo girl

...

Makes me wonder whether this is part of a US psyops campaign or something. I know the US was putting out false news a while back about ISIS have "slave markets", they even faked up a price list.

Attached: source.gif (480x320, 170K)

>israel makes 5G
>israel refuses to install it in their own country saying it's unsafe

Attached: 1542202398554.png (700x700, 615K)

Tel Aviv was one of the first cities with 5G...
5G is no more dangerous than having a wifi router in the same room as you, or carrying a phone. If wireless shit is dangerous, and I agree that it is, we're already far gone.

If that piece was written more scientifically I might actually pay attention to it. But all I see is cherrypicking, relying on single studies, and appeals to ""common sense"".

>The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating.
>The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation.
>Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head).
>However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature.
>There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
Nice secondary source. The use of the word "consistently" obviously means that further study is needed before deciding on some absolute causality like you loons have done here. And when I say further study, I mean double-blinded studies.

According to Wikipedia, the technology of 5G can be applied to frequencies up to 300GHz. In the US, it seems that concrete plans have been put through to use frequencies up to 39GHz. So saying it's no different from wifi is a bit disingenuous. Now it's a pretty safe assumption that frequency has no bearing on the actual effect when it interacts with your flesh, but it does have an effect of how it interacts, since higher frequencies will penetrate less and disperse more energy at the surface of your body.
Arguably, 300GHz 5G will be less likely to produce brain cancer than 5GHz wifi because it won't even get to your brain, and so will have a higher chance of causing skin cancer instead.

Anyhow, for an experiment I'd do, I'd use radiation baths on agar plates inoculated with known bacteria, with say 20 controls with visible light and 20 with the same W/m^2 of RF. And test that at a few dozen different frequencies at varying intensities. Then you'd compare the mutation and growth rates of the bacteria.

If 5G was actually safe you'd have a billion scientific experiments proving it already, but no one funds it because they know they won't like the results.

>-100dB
So literally nothing at all then?

>one is volt per meter over time
>the other is a frequency spectrum
They're completely different graphs, and he goes on about the shape of it?
Is this satire?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And we do have a lot of studies, if is anything to go by. Look on scopus, see what you can find.

Oh man, didn't pick up on that one.

>implying I give a flying fuck about my health
>implying I don't just want crazy fast internet so that I can steam 4D porn at 8K for my VR headset

I don't want a boring long life, I want a short fun life

Ultra-violet is non-ionizing radiation too but still causes cancer. People like you make me suspicious of 5G where I wouldn't normally be, because your only argument for its safety is reddit-tier Bill Nye science, which leads me to believe you don't actually know anything and are just repeating what someone else said.

But how many time have those papers been cited in other papers?

Ultraviolet is ionizing, dumbass.

UV is on the side of the spectrum that houses ionizing radiation, though, and at shorter wavelengths it does become ionizing.
Microwaves are not.

I don't think it's the US government. They have every reason to push for better communication infrastructure.
A significant part of the disinfo campaign has been paid for by Apple because they're years behind everyone else on implementing 5G, but I don't think they're behind all of this conspiratard bullshit.

Well depends on the UV, but the UV that causes cancer (i.e. less than 200nm or so) does so because it is ionising. Non-ionising UV radiation is still dangerous, but for the same reason that 1000nm IR is dangerous. Both are focused by the human eye, but your retina doesn't react to them, and so your iris doesn't contract and nor does your eyelid close instinctively, meaning you can get a lot of energy building up on your retina which can burn it and cause irreversible damage. The sort of damage done by arc-flashes if you were wearing safety glasses, or to a lesser extent if you use 405nm LEDs for home lighting. 405nm LEDs/lasers are visible, but barely; their radiant flux to luminous flux ratio is very low.
RF is not focused by the human eye due to the refractive index of our lens being different for different frequencies, and even 10µm IR from a CO2 laser will just stop at the outside of your eye. Microwave ovens have been known to cause burns, most often when the door latches aren't working correctly and the door can be opened without shutting off the magnetron. RF burns are also seen when radio technicians attempt to repair antennas when they haven't been powered down properly. The pain here isn't immediate, but a few minutes or hours later a pronounced burning sensation permeates the body. Even small ham radio antennae have been known to cause burns as some guy on /diy/ noted when he grabbed the antenna he'd fixed on his car when he was stopped.
The ~100GHz US riot deterrent weapon causes pain immediately, so it must be orders of magnitude more powerful than these antennae, even when taking into account penetration depth differences across frequencies, and the US must have tested its effect on animals and humans. I'd start looking for data there.

I don't get why you are so proud of being stupid
emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

Aso it may not be be considered bad for humans because
"we need more research even tough its started to look bad"
pic related

we already know is bad for birds and bees

cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(17)30289-6

news24.com/Green/News/Radio-waves-affect-migrating-birds-20140507

telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/17/electromagnetic-radiation-power-lines-phone-masts-poses-credible/

buglife.org.uk/news-and-events/news/parliament-get-serious-about-insect-declines

eklipse-mechanism.eu/documents/15803/0/EMR-KnowledgeOverviewReport_FINAL_27042018.pdf/1326791c-f39f-453c-8115-0d1c9d0ec942

buglife.org.uk/news-and-events/news/could-our-obsession-with-mobile-technology-destroy-wildlife

Also 5G is useless, we already can stream 4k fron netflix to our celphones with 4G (and we are waiting for encoders wich will need even less) wich is already pretty stupid and expensive to contract, but hey, if comcast tells you that you need an even more useless infraestructure wich needs more because their range is shorter after all the bullshit that they tell you about global warming it must be for your own good right?

Attached: k.jpg (1086x856, 211K)

Well firstly, RF interfering with the brains of creatures and their navigation organs is a completely seperate thing from cancer causing RF. The former would be more pronounced with lower frequencies, so using 40GHz 5G would be preferred to MW radio or power line ELF. At some point the increasing frequency becomes infrared, so at what frequency is the cancer risk highest? Because it's likely 0 at 0Hz and at 500THz.
Secondly, can we put a chance or rate on the cancer in rodents? If so, how does it compare to cancer from radon in the air or viral infection? Because if it's more than 3 orders of magnitude lower in everyday life, I'd simply forget about it. I 100% agree that more research should be done, and largely agree that 5G isn't really necessary, but higher frequency means that if we transmit the same amount of data (which we probably will because 4k is good enough), the transmission time will be much shorter, and I highly doubt that 10 times the frequency will cause cancer 10 times as often for the same J/kg dose. So higher frequencies are better? Not to mention higher frequency antennae can be made smaller and more directional, I'd say it's a win-win for everyone.

>emf scientist appeal
>only 4 sources
Come back when you have a dozen.

this so fucking much.
we white boys need to stroke our disgusting uncut cocks watching interracial 4K porn while we get our brains fried so we can die out

its da ruuskis
evil russian scum!

Attached: _20190516_055834.jpg (480x755, 108K)